JUDGMENT 1. This is a rule, calling upon the opposite party to show cause why the decree of the Subordinate Judge of Dinajpur, passed in the exercise of his powers of a Court of Small Causes and dated the 16th March 1907, should not be set aside on the ground that the notice to the Defendant, opposite party, was in accordance with the provisions of sec. 77 of the Indian Railways Act. The facts are as follows: It appears that certain goods were booked on the 13th February 1906, from station Jaipur on the Rajputana Malwa Railway. These goods were to be delivered to the Plaintiff at Dinajpur station on the Eastern Bengal Railway; but they never reached the Petitioner. The Petitioner therefore applied to the Rajputana Malwa Railway Company and carried on for Borne time correspondence with them. Ultimately the East Indian Railway Company on being referred to admitted that the goods had been received by them on the 14th February 1905, but that they had gone astray. 2. The Petitioner then sued the East Indian Railway Company who defended the suit on the ground that no notice of claim was ever given to them under the provisions of secs. 77 and 140 of the Indian Railways Act. The Small Cause Court Judge held that as the notice of claim must be given within six months and as no such notice was given, the suit was barred by the special law of limitation, and it accordingly dismissed the suit. 3. The Plaintiff has obtained this rule to show causa why the decree of the Small Cause Court should not be set aside. He contends that the notice given to the Rajputana Malwa Railway was sufficient and that the suit is accordingly not barred by limitation: and furthermore, that the East Indian Railway Company admitted that they received the goods. 4. We think, however, that we must hold on the authority of the case of The East Indian Railway Company v. Jethmull Ramanand (1), that the notice to the Rajputana Malwa Railway Company was not sufficient notice of claim to the East Indian Railway Company under secs. 77 and 140 of the Railways Act and that although the East Indian Railway Company admits the receipt of the goods and that they went astray on their line, the suit being barred by limitation, there can be no decree given against them. 77 and 140 of the Railways Act and that although the East Indian Railway Company admits the receipt of the goods and that they went astray on their line, the suit being barred by limitation, there can be no decree given against them. The rule is discharged with costs, two gold mohurs.